Friday, April 27, 2012

It is unsurprising that former Liberal Senator Nick Minchin has followed up his appearance on last night's ABC climate special and Q and A Climate Debate with an opinion piece in today's Age stating the thoroughly expected "news" that they failed to change his mind about climate change.

Yet, if anything emerged from last night, it was that there is no climate debate as such (as opposed to mere disagreement), Minchin's position is irrelevant to the issue, and there's little, if any, common ground between those who argue cogently for urgent action to address climate change and those who deny it.

It was a pity that a meeting with Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science at the University of California San Diego, failed to make the final program, for it was on the link between climate denial and the denial of tobacco as a cause of cancer that Minchin was most clearly rattled by Rose's clear and measured questioning.

In Oreskes' book, The Merchants of Doubt, the professor considers the key figures common to the denial of climate change and the campaign to discredit the science on the grim realities of tobacco. Oreskes shows how the tactics of Big Tobacco persisted long after the evidence of the disastrous health effects was well and truly in.

That the same pattern has been followed on the climate issue lies at the heart of Minchin's fallibility, but his television appearances and today's opinion reveal differences and limitations in how the media deal with the issue.

The Q and A Climate Debate included not only Rose and CSIRO head Megan Clark on the panel, but also authorities in the audience - including Professor Matthew England - who were in a position to immediately correct the errors of science put forward not only by Minchin, but by coal magnate and fellow panellist, Clive Palmer.

Unfortunately, it will be left to the letters column and follow-up opinion to correct without the same immediacy and effectiveness the errors Minchin repeats intoday's Age, but they must not go unchallenged.

Last night he also claimed there is "no empirical evidence" that humans are causing global warming and that the "science isn't settled", while today he writes of a "lively scientific debate" that he hopes will continue.

For Minchin, it does not suffice that the science is verifiably in to the extent that global warming is happening, is caused by human activity, and indicates more not less urgent action with each new finding of research. He is forced to deny these facts - to sow doubt in Oreskes' terms - because the acknowledgment of facts would leave him nowhere to go.

Unfortunately for the former senator, the "facts" on which he seeks to stand are an iceberg long-melted in the sea when we consider the nature of verification of the claims of the respective sides, and their status beyond the mere "conviction" and "persuasion" he attributes to those, like Anna Rose, who base their case on peer-reviewed scientific research.

The omission of Oreskes was indeed a pity in this regard because what we do about climate change comes down to what counts as evidence, and how we can be assured that the conclusions put forward are actually robust and reliable. This is where Minchin's side falls away like an eroding coastline. It is the dividing line between claim and argument, between assertion and substantiated fact.

In his parade of sceptics, however, Minchin has offered a fixed target that I now hope will be closely examined by climate scientists and widely reported across the media. Such debunking of myths has been carried out in the past, but last night's programs offer an opportunity to do so in a substantial media spotlight at a critical time for our nation.

A disagreement is not a debate unless verifiable facts are attributed on both sides. While we cannot stop people disagreeing without reason (or for irrelevant reasons of self-interest), we can call them on their hollow arguments and not be delayed from necessary action in the national and global interest.

Last night Q and A ran my video question challenging Clive Palmer to invest his billions in zero-emission renewable energy instead of carbon-intensive coal. I was happy for it to be on, but I actually preferred another question I had submitted for Minchin himself.

That question asked who he thought were the appropriate umpires of questions of climate science. It also asked him why he was willing to appeal to a false debate in rejecting climate action, when he would surely never consider arguing against emergency surgery in hospitals based on a false "debate" about medical science. That is the frame in which we ought to see the self-interested challenges to climate action here and around the world.

Given the sides in this disagreement, it was a somewhat illusory hope that "common ground" would be achieved, and what passed for compromise looked more like the next move in the climate denialists' play-book. We need, according to Minchin and Palmer, not a price on carbon, but far more investment in research and development of green energy - to make it so cheap that everyone wants to use it.

That's actually true, but the rub is what will happen in the meantime if we fail to also price carbon. Without a carbon price and additional measures to curb our emissions, we can only expect that the continued burning of fossil fuels will cause emissions to spiral upwards to the point where they place any safe climate solution beyond reach.

Sounds a bit like telling us to keep smoking while Big Tobacco works on cigarettes that won't give us cancer, don't you think?

Friday, April 13, 2012

Today's edition of The Age carries my letter (see "Not cricket, chaps") responding to yesterday's piece by Philip Dorling reporting ASIO's spying on green protesters who are fighting the expansion of coal by Australian State and Federal governments. Here's the unedited version:

MEMO to ASIO: Chaps, I need to give you the nod about some dastardly
characters conspiring as part of a secret organisation that poses a
direct threat to the interests off all Australian citizens, our allies,
and a few billion poor people you may not be too concerned about but it
would be nice to look after. This nasty outfit is called the Carbon
Party, and draws its global membership from the big polluters and
mainstream political parties who think climate change caused by human
activities is a lot of rot.

Two of the blighters, federal and state energy and resources
ministers, Martin Ferguson (codename "The Fossil") and Michael O'Brien,
somewhat carelessly gave a joint press conference earlier this year at a
carbon capture and storage launch in Morwell, where an extension to
meet its funding conditions was also granted to a rather grubby brown
coal-fired power project (since given the "green" light by VCAT).

Usually, these darklings are more careful to veil themselves in talk
of their flimsy support for renewable energy and aren't quite so
brazen, but they're ramping up their efforts to destroy our climate and
collect those dirty coal dollars.

Their Victorian colleagues have abandoned the State 2020 emissions target, removed the cap on emissions from new brown coal power stations,
and announced plans to expand the industry, including coal-seam-gas - all to be sold by a
publicly funded spin campaign to persuade Victorians that brown coal is
good enough to sprinkle on their breakfast cereal.

Their Federal
operatives are paying a private company (NOSIC), and now seem to be
asking you guys and the Australian Federal Police, to spy on peaceful
protesters they want everyone to believe are more dangerous than
terrorists.

Hmmm. They're actually not more dangerous than terrorists, and it
would be a tragedy if you let some real terrorists through the net
while you were wasting your time spying on coal protesters who are
working hard to protect the national interest.

You should also seriously
consider looking into the organisation and support of the Carbon Party
in Australia - they're well funded, well connected, and seem to have the
run of the place as our carbon emissions climb endlessly higher. That's
not cricket, chaps. They have to be stopped. Get on with it!

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Yesterday, The Age reported the Baillieu Government's "Plan to head off protests on coal". This deceitful plan to sell brown coal expansion to the
Victorian public itself acknowledges that "as part of action on climate
change, many stakeholders expect to see a transition away from coal".

It's worth asking why, as we also note the fundamental obligation of any
publicly funded government campaign to be based on truth.

Coal protest, which the so-called Coal Action Plan (CAP) aims to
head off, is founded not just on the unavoidable high emissions from
using coal - especially brown coal - as a fuel source, but on its
significant health and environmental impacts, and on the clear threat
posed to prime agricultural land.

There is no way (in the words of the plan) to "identify actions
to address" these "issues" apart from leaving coal in the ground - the
only form of carbon capture and storage we know that works.

Talk of "low-emission" or "clean" coal technology is self-contradictory, as
there is no existing or foreseeable technology with
emissions low enough to avoid a heavy contribution to climate change. Nor is there any such technology that comes even close to genuinely clean
energy sources - such as solar and wind - that can be tapped by low or zero emission renewable technologies that are working
right now around the world.

The government's "coal narrative" can only ever be a work of fiction; the
narrative we need, one that can CAP our growing carbon emissions within
safe limits, must be based on fact. The alchemy of turning coal fiction into
"fact" does not become possible, even for Premier Baillieu, just because
there are coal dollars to be made.

See also views by Lynn Frankes ("Next generation be damned") and Jo McCubbin in today's letters in The Age.

About This Blog

This blog is independent and is not aligned with any political party. It seeks to engage in debate on public issues, and to challenge policies and positions regardless of their political origin.

Comments Policy

Comments are welcome from any political perspective, but I reserve the right to reject comments that in my view are defamatory, abusive, or do not seek to rationally engage the topic. Such comments will be deleted at my earliest opportunity, but responsibility for comments on this site rests with those making them.

Right of Reply

Please be aware that if you disagree with any content on this site, including if you are criticised, you have a right of reply within the constraints described above.